Listened to most of it on my ride today, finishing up the last bit at my desk. While Lee Fang made some sensible cautionary points about violence—e.g., the role of persuading the great mushy middle, possibly being manipulated by agents provocateur to justify state repression—overall I wasn't impressed with his position. He was seriously hung up on defining Nazis and the risks of attacking non-Nazis out of zeal. Which is to say, a slippery slope concern. Which could be interpreted as him being fine with proactive violence if conditions are right and discipline is in place. He didn't offer a forceful argument for non-violence so much as a warning against violence. There was also some unnecessary attempts to shift the conservation to the dangers of the non-fascist right—corporate power, mainly—as if anyone on the left thinks that the problem is solely a bunch of neo-Nazi goons. George Ciccariello-Maher's arguments weren't especially convincing to me, either, but admittedly that's because of my own pacifist leanings. He's right in asserting a flexible approach—not every tactic works in every situation—but in that kind of discussion I'd like something more constructive and specific. And his advocacy of bringing guns to protests is just an invitation for mayhem. (Sorry I'm not more detailed in assessing their points, but when listening while riding, my attention and memory isn't as dedicated to the listening.)

Inspired by Kory and Doc's anti-work provocations, I'm reading back articles of Current Affairs today. This is probably one of the best written critiques of the Left's current no-platforming/antifa consensus that I've read: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/08/ ... d-violence

Inspired by Kory and Doc's anti-work provocations, I'm reading back articles of Current Affairs today. This is probably one of the best written critiques of the Left's current no-platforming/antifa consensus that I've read: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/08/ ... d-violence

A lot to digest there, but it's interesting to see a pragmatist perspective applied there, when it's normally the domain of centrism and regarded pejoratively by left and right. I'll just add (and I think I've made this statement before) that we are not obliged to grant free speech respect to Nazis because one of the foundational principles of democratic nations is reciprocity. Which is to say that political disputes are handled without violence and retribution; one does not lose rights by losing a political disagreement and is allowed to continue to hold the countering point. Nazis reject that principle—never forget that they are contemptuous of both democracy and monarchy—so they have pulled out of that part of the social contract. Accordingly, the rest of us don't have to honour it. It's foolish to grant space and opportunity to people who seek to destroy social and political values we embrace. We are not hypocrites by seeking to shut up those who would eliminate our rights. But how we go about it, as that piece illustrates, is a difficult nut to crack.

Centrists claiming the mantle of pragmatism has long annoyed me. Advocating shitty policy isn't the same as pragmatism. The mark of the centrist is to basically reject what this article is calling for: a clear eyed embrace of a well defined ends. Then, you can analyze the means. But it takes actual moral clarity, something centrism is incapable of, to articulate ends and goals.

Centrism is just starry eyed ideological fantasizing that bipartisan neoliberalism is going to somehow improve people's lives in some undefined way. It's all means. But just getting a bill passed isn't pragmatic in any useful sense of the word.

Centrists claiming the mantle of pragmatism has long annoyed me. Advocating shitty policy isn't the same as pragmatism. The mark of the centrist is to basically reject what this article is calling for: a clear eyed embrace of a well defined ends. Then, you can analyze the means. But it takes actual moral clarity, something centrism is incapable of, to articulate ends and goals.

Centrism is just starry eyed ideological fantasizing that bipartisan neoliberalism is going to somehow improve people's lives in some undefined way. It's all means. But just getting a bill passed isn't pragmatic in any useful sense of the word.

Centrists claiming the mantle of pragmatism has long annoyed me. Advocating shitty policy isn't the same as pragmatism. The mark of the centrist is to basically reject what this article is calling for: a clear eyed embrace of a well defined ends. Then, you can analyze the means. But it takes actual moral clarity, something centrism is incapable of, to articulate ends and goals.

Centrism is just starry eyed ideological fantasizing that bipartisan neoliberalism is going to somehow improve people's lives in some undefined way. It's all means. But just getting a bill passed isn't pragmatic in any useful sense of the word.

Centrists claiming the mantle of pragmatism has long annoyed me. Advocating shitty policy isn't the same as pragmatism. The mark of the centrist is to basically reject what this article is calling for: a clear eyed embrace of a well defined ends. Then, you can analyze the means. But it takes actual moral clarity, something centrism is incapable of, to articulate ends and goals.

Centrism is just starry eyed ideological fantasizing that bipartisan neoliberalism is going to somehow improve people's lives in some undefined way. It's all means. But just getting a bill passed isn't pragmatic in any useful sense of the word.

Notably, your description of centrism sounds a lot like libertarianism: rejection of morality in public policy, no concern for ends, a faith that means (free market) will improve people's lives. Which would be suggestive as to where the centre of American politics actually lies now (more so considering that the Cold War centrism was guided by general goals and morality).

Isn't it already red outside of Seattle and Olympia? I've met some scary as fuck folks from Spokane.

It is for sure. I'm just saying that Seattle is pretty much the only thing that swings us blue in each election. I think that's going to change with the tech bro influx.

Gotcha!

I'm worried about where I'm going to live on that day. There's nothing else around here.

Do you think the tech bros will invade Seattle itself or will they gravitate toward the east side?

They've already been here for a few years. With Amazon firmly planting its base on the north side of downtown, most of the city is being razed to put up new overpriced condos (pushing anybody that doesn't make at least $80k/yr out of the city), and Capitol Hill (formerly the gay haven of the city) has become a hotbed of homophobic violence. Meanwhile, the city government is scrambling to convince Amazon to also station their second base here (they've been looking to have an equal presence in another city), acting like a jealous lover and forgetting that they have a major affordable housing issue that neither party is interested in addressing. Yes, Amazon is good for the city's economy, but not in the slightest for anyone who lived here before The Beast took hold. The whole place is getting fucked.